Landlord cleared out personal belongings

KatrinaWaves

Whether it is criminal or civil is up for discussion, however I can tell you with 99% certainty that no one would be arrested or charged over this. So really it’s down to a civil case for damages, which for paperwork and sundries is hard to quantify. 

Like I said before, full damage deposit no questions asked, return of last months rent, honestly I don’t think this has much more legs. There was no valuables or furniture involved. The landlord kept the photos so clearly had some notion of sense about him. I honestly don’t think this has any legs. Yes it’s emotive and it’s not a nice thing to happen by any stretch, but the items appear to have emotional value only, and ‘convenience’ value such as paperwork etc. What price is a judge going to put on lamps, soft furnishings and paperwork? 

-taff

Someone entered her premises and disposed of her belongings. Report it as theft. Get a crime number. Did dhe have contents insurance?

NewShadow

davidmcn said:

diggingdude said:

davidmcn said:

Assuming we're talking England or Wales, I'm not sure it has the element of dishonesty required for theft, if we think the landlord just prematurely cleared the property rather than actually nicked the stuff.

Besides, I can't see the cops treating it as other than a civil matter, and even if they are interested it doesn't help with the separate matter of getting compensation.

I get where you are coming from, but this would then suggest any landlord could go do the same "sorry Gov, thought they'd moved innit"

It doesn't mean the tenant doesn't have remedies, but I'm not convinced it constitutes the crime of theft if the landlord had the honest belief that the tenant wasn't coming back (even if they are mistaken about their rights from a landlord and tenant point of view).

I agree, this is a case of conversion - not theft - and therefore a matter for the courts, not the police. 

I believe the relevant tort would be the Interference with Goods Act 1977 - and the penalty would be compensation; that the compensation can be in excess of the replacement value of the property but any claim for aggravated damages would need to be quantified and justified. 

Separately - re the BIB - possibly only because of the late hour... I'm wondering if there would be a case for illegal eviction - notice had been given but the tenancy not yet surrendered and the OP mentioned the landlord was keen to have the property vacant to facilitate a sale, meaning there may have been an element of wilful misunderstanding... most likely not, but the attitude of the landlord may come into play in deciding whether to explore the option as an aid to negotiating any settlement... 

If I were the OP I would strongly consider contacting my/my relatives insurance providers to see if I have legal cover - and, if not, investing in half an hour with a local solicitor with experience in tenancy law... 

[Deleted User]

The police don't have the greatest reputation when it comes to landlord/tenant disputes.  I agree with @NewShadow that contacting your relative's contents insurer would be a good move and if her insurance also has legal cover even better.

wesleyad

I can't find it now, perhaps someone else will have better luck, but there was a case of a LL being fined for ditching belongings after tenant went to jail. I'd say this is worse, seeing as the tenant was still paid up, and contactable if needed. Cannot believe LL did this before tenancy ended. I had a situation where tenants were arrested and deported (long story) but I was still very careful with their belongings until it was clear I had done my reasonable duty as "involuntary bailee"

onwards&upwards

KatrinaWaves said:

Whether it is criminal or civil is up for discussion, however I can tell you with 99% certainty that no one would be arrested or charged over this. So really it’s down to a civil case for damages, which for paperwork and sundries is hard to quantify. 

Like I said before, full damage deposit no questions asked, return of last months rent, honestly I don’t think this has much more legs. There was no valuables or furniture involved. The landlord kept the photos so clearly had some notion of sense about him. I honestly don’t think this has any legs. Yes it’s emotive and it’s not a nice thing to happen by any stretch, but the items appear to have emotional value only, and ‘convenience’ value such as paperwork etc. What price is a judge going to put on lamps, soft furnishings and paperwork? 

Emotional value only?  This lady is still alive, she was still in need of her belongings!  If he has thrown everything away lots will need to be replaced, care home residents still wear clothes! 

KatrinaWaves

And how much value do you think second hand clothing is going to have? 

My comment is based on the OP stating some of the items would have been nice for grandchildren, therefore I’m assuming many are no longer useful. 

NewShadow

KatrinaWaves said:

And how much value do you think second hand clothing is going to have? 

Cashmere v Walsh, Downing & Veale: the value of the tenant's property was set at £6,515, plus an amount of £47,000 under s.27 and s.28 Housing Act 1988 as it was deemed by the court the true reason for the illegal eviction was the landlords desire to sell the property with vacant possession... 

It would require someone versed with all of the relevant information and experience in the field to determine the prospects of this particular case, but it's not unreasonable to think a court may award an amount for damages in excess of the nominal value of the items in question given the circumstances thus stated. 

Wanderingpomm

KatrinaWaves said:

And how much value do you think second hand clothing is going to have? 

My comment is based on the OP stating some of the items would have been nice for grandchildren, therefore I’m assuming many are no longer useful. 

She’s in care so will need clothes, linens etc. I would think hundreds if not thousands to replace like for like 

MoneySeeker1

KatrinaWaves said:

And how much value do you think second hand clothing is going to have? 

My comment is based on the OP stating some of the items would have been nice for grandchildren, therefore I’m assuming many are no longer useful. 

But it wouldnt be secondhand clothing if this relative still requires it to wear - as indeed they do.

Personally, I'd be sitting down and making out a replacement costs list, eg:
coat £300
jeans £100 per pair
jumper £50-£300 each (dependant on what quality this relative buys)
knee boots £100 per pair
and so on and I know my own mind would boggle at the thought of the literally thousands of £s that would be needed to replace all my clothes with "what I already owned - but the landlord had ditched them" as I would expect the equivalent (ie brand new and equivalent quality).

I'm wondering about the possibility of a small claim court case for replacement of at least those possessions the relative still needs/wants.
Add that the relative would, presumably, take at least some of their furniture into the care home with them - as it is quite normal for residents to bring things like their favourite armchair, chest of drawers, tv etc in with them and so the money to replace those items with new equivalent quality ones will be needed.